Reversing a decision from 1996, a federal appeals court in Cincinnati has ruled the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) does not require the U.S. Marshals Service automatically to release mugshots taken when federal prisoners are booked. With all 16 judges participating in the July 14 decision, the 6th Circuit by a 9-7 vote held prisoners in fact have privacy interests in their booking photos, which must be balanced against the public interest in deciding whether the FOIA requires release of those photos.

The decision will likely have effects beyond the four states (Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee) within the 6th Circuit. For years after the 6th Circuit’s 1996 decision that prisoners have no FOIA privacy rights in their booking photos, the Marshals Service only released federal prisoners’ mugshots when the requester was from a state within the 6th Circuit.

Press outlets quickly learned when they wanted the mugshot for a federal inmate in the news, such as New York financial figure Bernard Madoff, they could get it by having a “straw man” in a 6th Circuit state request it. But, after two other federal circuits decided federal prisoners had privacy rights in their mugshots, the Marshals Service in 2012 began withholding mugshots from all FOIA requesters, including those in the 6th Circuit, citing an FOIA exemption for material compiled for law enforcement purposes which would bring “unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.”

Materials which have qualified for that exemption in earlier cases include rap sheets and grisly photos of crime victims. (State governments vary widely in how they treat mugshots: some make release automatic, while others restrict or forbid it.)

A wide range of media interests, including the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Associated Press, CNN, Bloomberg and others, supported the plaintiff in the latest case, the Detroit Free Press, which went to court in an unsuccessful effort to obtain booking photos for police officers in the state facing bribery and drug conspiracy charges.

In the new decision, Detroit Free Press v. Department of Justice, the appellate court majority overturned its 1996 decision (known as Free Press I, since it involved the same Detroit newspaper), saying the digital age gives greater permanence and wider access to mugshots and so “casts a long, damaging shadow” over the person depicted.

Twenty years ago, when the court found criminal defendants lacked a personal privacy interest in their mugshots, the majority opinion explained, such photos might appear for a short time in print or on TV, then disappear from view. Today, however, internet proliferation and even the appearance of websites devoted to archiving mugshots persuaded the majority that its former policy needed revision. Its new decision will require Justice to balance the interests of both the public and the individual in deciding whether a mugshot photo should be released.

The dissenting judges argued the policy change would let the Justice Department “selectively shield itself from public scrutiny,” harming the cause of open government and making it harder for the general public to learn how the criminal justice system is working.

While the issue seems settled, the controversy could be revived: the Detroit newspaper says it’s considering appealing the decision to the Supreme Court.

The client was charged with driving while impaired by drugs. We showed the DA’s office the client suffered from hyperkalemia, a medical condition caused by an elevated level of potassium which can cause fatigue, lethargy and confusion. All charges were dismissed.

Client was charged with Robbery in the Second Degree. He was with a friend who robbed a person sitting in a parked car. We were able to show the DA’s office that our client had no knowledge of his friends intent. We were able to get the felony reduced to a Disorderly Conduct which is a non criminal offense.

Client was charged with Criminal Posession of a Weapon and was facing a minimum of three and one half years. During an evidentiary hearing we were able to show that the police confuted an illegal search the gun was suppressed and the charge was dismissed.

Client was charged with Grand Larceny. It was her 7th arrest during the previous 10 years. The DA’s office was not offering a reduced charge and was requesting jail time. We got the client involved in a work and parenting program and were able to secure a plea to a misdemeanor without jail or probation.

Client was charged with Unlawful Surveilence. After his plea of guilty it was a discretionary decision to be made by the court as to weather he had to register as a sex offender. Through our efforts we were able to have him sentenced without having to register.

Client Testimonials

"I can’t thank Scott enough for helping me. I had never been arrested before and found myself in the middle of a nightmare. I was arrested for and charged with criminal Mischief in the Third degree which is a class E Felony. Scott was first able to get the charge reduced to a misdemeanor. He was then able to see that the case was completely dismissed."

T.T.Charged with Felony Assault and Criminal Mischief in Queens County

"Scott Limmer is a very knowledgeable Nassau County NY lawyer and has been extremely helpful to me and my family over 8 months of court. He knows how to handle the ADA and his tenacity has been untiring. The quality of his work is in the ending of the case, with justice being served and correct. We are very fortunate and thankful to have found Scott Limmer to represent us. Thank you Scott and God Bless"

F.L.Arrested for Robbery in the Second Degree in Nassau County

"Scott Limmer is a man of his word and an attorney with integrity above reproach. When one needs a criminal attorney it is usually the most harrowing time of your life. Scott Limmer makes a horrible situation easier. He speaks in layman’s terms and explains your situation every step of the way. He keeps the costs to a minimum and delivers beyond expectations. I would recommend choosing Scott Limmer as your attorney hands down."

A.O.Arrested for Suffolk County Felony

"I was arrested for a felony Mr. Limmer would not agree to any of the offered plea bargains. He was able to get the case dismissed. I can’t thank him enough for his hard work and professionalism."

D.D.Arrested for Falsifying Business Record in the First Degree in Nassau

"Scott helped me thru a very difficult 20 months of navigating thru the Nassau county legal system. His advice was on the money from the start to the end. Amicable, tenacious and knowledgeable, just some of the words to describe him…In the end I credit his guidance in helping me get the just court decision…But then again he knew the outcome….thanks Scott…we remain in touch to this day and my case was over almost two years ago…"

T.C.Arrested for Assault in the Third Degree in Nassau County

"Helped me thoroughly with all my traffic dealings. He is my go to guy for my company. Scott is the best."